PROMISSORY NOTE.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 15 October 1924, Page 9

PROMISSORY NOTE.

CLAIM FOR PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST. STOCK DEALER’S CONTRACT. A promissory noth ease crime up for hearing at the Magistrate’s Court on Tuesday before Mr A. M. Mowlem, S.M. (the Argus reports), . Mary Oqw (Mi* A. A. Bennett), formerly of Eltham, but . now of Christchurch, widow, and executrix of the estrije of George Davie Gow, formerly of Eltham, a solicitor,., deceased, was the plaintiff, and C. E. Robinson (Mr D. Clement), of Eltham, formerly a stock, dealer , but now a motor salesman, was defendant.

In her statement/of claim the plaintiff said that on -May 31, 1920, the defendant, by his promissory note, now overdue, promised to pay to the order of James Bridge! the sum of £lO5 six months after date. /The note by endorsement of Janies Bridger and others was transferred to the plaintiff as executrix of her husband’s estate. Therefore the plaintiff sought to recover £lO6 16s 4d. The principal and interest had amounted to £l3l 19s 4d, of which £25 3s ; had been Paid. £2 5s as interest on December I*s, and £22 18s on December'3, by cash from G. H. Mattock, endorser.

Andrew Chrystal, a solicitor, said that he was solicitor for the .plaintiff in the action. When the note was given he was managing clerk for the late Mr G. D. Gow. At that time the defendant was in partnership with Mattock as dealers in stock. The note transaction was Jar ranged by Mr Gow. The note was not presented at the Bank of Australasia on September 6, 1920. ? Witness , was then handling the transaction. The reason why ’the note had not been presented was that Mattock and-Robinson had asked that the note should be held over. The, defendant and Mattock approached witness again in January, 1921. They presented a list of their stock, and told him that they proposed dissolving the partnership and that the note would be liquidated out of the stock realisation. The defendant had never repudiated the debt to witness. By February no payment bad been made, and no result of the proposed, sale was forthcoming. Witness wrofe to the defendant -pressing him for payment. Subsequently he saw the defendant and Mattock, and they asked that the matter he beld over, as they could not realise at the time owing to the fall in stock. On June, 18, 1924,- witness again wrote to Robinson that as Mattock could not now pay he would have to look to Robinson for payment. He had looked at the time to the best mark. • In March, 1924, witness paid, as solicitor 'for the Gow estate, the balance owing, to Bridger. The amount was still unpaid. To Mr Clement: He had been very closely associated with Mattock, wlr:> was his client. He had no Idea that the partnership was clceed chi August 9, two months after the note was made. He was not quite clear as to who had arranged that the note was not presented. To the best of his knowledge, both Mattock and Robinson had arranged.. He did not remember their asking hirn to consent to his looking to Mattock for -payment. He denied that he had consented. Mr Clement said that the case for the defence was an alleged novation, the releasing of a third party by another contract.

The defendant, residing at Hawera. said that Mattock arranged the- note, but he could not take it because of his position with the Loan .and Mercantile Co. Witness took the note, and Mattock endorsed it. To his knowledge he had never asked Chrystal not to present the note, Neither Mr Chrj’stal nor Mr Gow did work for witness other than partnership transactions. After the partnership Mattock and witness interviewed Mr Chrystal, w.lm took a list of stock from Mattock. Witness understood that Mr Chrystal was going to take a bill of sale over the stock. Mattock was to be looked to for uayment of the promissory /npte, and defendant for other liabilities in connection with the partnership. He did not think that he would have to meet the p.n. v as he understood that Mr Chrystal was looking to Mattock for payment. To Mr Bennett: He did not suggest that there was ever anything in writing that he was to be freed from the transaction.

To the Magistrate: At no time was his estate insolvent, as Mr Chrystal had stated, and if necessary evidence coukl be given that if the* note .had been presented it could have been met. G. H. Mattock, a labourer, Inglewood. said that when the partnership was dissolved he agreed w'ith Robinson that he would oav the note if Robinson would fix *the other debts. When the arrangement was put to Mr Chrystal he said he would let it- stand at that, Mr Chrystal agreed to witness taking the liability for the note, Mi( Clement said a dishonoured promissory note bore interest at 8 per cent. This note had never been dishonoured. No effort had been made within three years to collect interest He contended that the evidence showed a novation.

Mr Bennett held that the novation must be in writing under the Bills of Exchange Act. There was no evidence that Robinson had been released from liability for payment. The Magistrate held that there had been no novation. If the defendant was not answefable, ] ie should not have nut his name to the note. In his opinion the proceedings against Robinson were perfectly right. Judgment would he given * for* the full amount claimed, with court costs £3 2s and solicitors’ fee £6 7s. Security for appeal was fixed at -UTS los.